I like the way the kid on the front right (in the side-striped shirt) looks early on to whacking at his lips, as if to make that "whappa whappa whappa" sound. Oh, I don't know how to write it (I never was good at generating onomatopoeia, beyond the cliched basics), but you know what sound I mean, don't you?

While I too find the teaching of schoolchildren to sing paeans to Obama to be unnerving, it is no less so whomever the sitting President may be. Given all the foofarah about this matter, Jon Stewart last night aired a clip of Louisiana schoolchildren singing praises to Bush for his help after Hurrican Katrina. (!?)

As for the tag at the end lamenting the apparent ubiquity of "liberalism," would that it were so.

Actually, I don't think most Americans are political at all, as far as having a consciously defined political worldview; most folks just want to go about their lives. But, recent polls show that, when asked their attitudes about various public policy issues, absent any references to terms such as "conservative" or "liberal," Americans tend toward policy preferences that partisans would describe as "liberal."

All their idiotic noise and fury to the contrary, the right wingers, Tea Party attendees, and Fox News afficianados hold a distinct minority view among the American public at large.

Amusingly enough, the reason I have time to comment this morning is that all I'm doing is preparing for a meeting with our supervising teacher (one of the avenues for legally homeschooling in Iowa is to have one, with whom one meets or talks with via phone).

The numerous videos on Youtube comparing these videos with Hitler youth sing alongs is really creepy.

The Nazi ones are nearly identical in message. Usually, very uplifting, and seemingly the harmless extolling of unity, love, change, hope, etc.

It's the attention to a single person that I don't like. Men are far to corruptible to be the objects of worship for children. What if Obama becomes a huge failure or worse, like a Nixon figure. These kids will be stuck with these videos of them singing to him forever.

Our kids deserve more respect. Admiring historical figures after the tally is in is fine, but Obama is far from proved. JFK has been canonized beyond all concern with fact, even after death. I liked him, but what did he do? This new stuff is definitely a bridge too far.

MadisonMan, did you listen to the way the video "began"** and the words early on it? It sounds as if you're responding primarily to those nearing the end (I can be 100% wrong, of course).

**I'd prefer it if there were a longer version of this video, because it's fair to wonder about the larger context. And to, as always, want to know why the decision was made to start at a particular place, as opposed to a bit earlier. Etc.

You know, is it weren'to so tied to Obama's electioneering mantra, one might think "So what."

BUT I can never remember singing songs about how *I* could make America better.

The message is there over and over and over -- we were never good enough for people like the Obamas, the Ayers (right- looking at you too, Bernardine), the Wrights, the Pfleglers, the ACORN dudes, Alinsksy and all his acolytes ....

Weird. Really, really weird.

But it makes sense if you are a statist and the state is the where everything's at.

I think the kids are more impervious than we might think by looking at these things. In fact, they're very likely to rebel. The whole time they're singing they're thinking, "what a bunch of crap I'm made to do."

I did not understand the pledge of allegiance. At first I simply couldn't understand how a nation under God could be be invisible when it was plainly in view. But once that was cleared up I wondered why I was taking an oath to a flag.

I liked flags as much as any boy, flapping around, waving back and forth, almost as good as a kite, probably would make a good parachute, jump off a swing holding the corners, pull the ropes, fly it around, but swearing an allegiance to it? Seemed odd. I didn't get it. It's a piece of fabric! Ferchristsake. Then I thought, "Why are they making me do this?" Then, "I rather don't care for being indoctrinated like this." Then, "I'm certain I don't like this." Then, "I wonder what would happen to me if I refused." Then, "Oh just, blahblahblah de blahblahblah de blabidy blabidy blah blah."

Please, this is a mountain out of a mole hill. Don't we have more important things to worry about? This controversy is crap.My child was educated entirely in private schools, catholic, and she was NEVER known as a religious nut. Ridiculous.

I'm most offended by the waste of time. If they're going to gather kids up into formations that look like a choir, they ought to be teaching kids some great choral music.

My friend went to a parent-teacher conference recently because her 6-year-old is apparently getting distracted mid-morning. This is after 1 and 1/2 hours of math, and into the next hour and a half of reading. And because No Child Must Be Left Behind, there's no recess. None. For first-graders. But there must be something wrong with a little boy getting restless.

Math, reading, history - all good. So are singing, art and recess. We've really lost our way in education.

Beth: My son attended a school in which boys of that age were expected, while walking on line to other classrooms, refrain from flapping their arms, even if they'd been sitting for great lengths of time.

JAL I went to school in Buncombe County in the 1980s and went to North Buncombe HS. It was a much different place before all the Yankees came down (note, my family were Yankees when we arrived).

Quayle - I agree. I brought home a friend for dinner in college. Later that evening, my parents mentioned they were proud of me because I never mentioned my friend was black and they thought they must have done something right. Truthfully, it never occurred to me and I never rec'd "diversity training," pointing out my differences with my friends.

And because No Child Must Be Left Behind, there's no recess. None. For first-graders.

The horror.

My daughter has gone to public school from day and one and had recess. She also doesn't spend an hour and a half a day in math or reading either and she's in advanced math and reading now in 7th grade.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to get my daughter back to tilling the backyard and fetching water.

Heh. I think kids need time to play, if not other reason than that they have boatloads of energy that needs to be expended. Honestly, they would probably be better off tilling and fetching water for an hour or two a day, then being forced to sit still for 8 hours straight.

reader, I did listen to the whole thing, but confess to looking at first at the kids, and seeing the distracting general squirminess, and not really listening. Was it a lot of hopey/changey nonsense? After some time the kids settled down and I then started listening to the words.

I watched it once. Please don't suggest I listen again.

I will say this: This is far far far better than Wackadoo Zoo. (shudder)

All their idiotic noise and fury to the contrary, the right wingers, Tea Party attendees, and Fox News afficianados hold *a* distinct minority view among the American public at large.

Which view, Robert? On what topic? Could you specify, please?

Seconded.

Robert, please don't make sweeping statements like that without backing them up with, at the very least, sources. If what you claim is true (which I'll not cede), then why did the Clinton administration run left, but govern center-right?

Why did even the most avidly liberal prof I had in poli sci lament the fact that the country is center-right? The guy had KMARX on his license-plate for crying out loud, but still lamented the fact that the prols were all center-right.

In Madison, kids still get recess through middle school, but it's after lunch, so lunch is a hurried affair, and woe to the kid who gets hot lunch and has to wait in line. I think that's why my son brownbags it. He can wolf down his two PB&Js and then get outside.

OH, and for the record...to the point of the thread in the first place...

Any publicly-funded institution that makes young kids sing praises to individual government officials should make one's skin crawl. This should be true regardless of ideology or party.

Remember those kids saying prayers toward that cardboard cutout of Bush? Just as scary.

We're supposed to be a nation of people who's loyalties lie with institutions and ideals, not individuals. Loyalty to individuals first is a sure-fire step toward totalitarianism. Again...machs nicht on the party the adored belongs to.

Greybeard, no I have never served in the military, but I grew up in a military family and half my formative years were spent on Air Force bases. I went to twelve schools before graduating from high school and we did that pledge in all of them. Although thankfully we were never compelled to sing songs to presidents, I am used to seeing framed photographs of presidents displayed prominently in government buildings, as a way of propounding "this is our current leader."

I was reminded of this at my father's service at Ft. Logan. I had forgotten they did that. At the Visitors Center, right there behind the counter centered high on the broad soffit, a LARGE photograph of G. Bush 43. I thought, "If my friends saw this, they'd shit themselves."

~~~~~

In the opening frame of the video (haven't bothered to watch) the boy in front with the stripe shirt looks like he's wearing a paper hat folded into a boat from a newspaper. Ha ha ha. I used to love those paper boats.

This stuff will cost the Dems votes. It's overkill and moderate Americans recognize it at a glance.

It's like the Dems appointing 3-4 dimwitted bootlickers to vacant U.S. Senate seats....Burris in IL, Kaufman in DE, Teddy's replacement in MA. What good soldier will take Robert Byrd's seat when he croaks for good?

Arrogant complacency like this will cost the Dems votes too because we are not a monarchy.

"...why did the Clinton administration run left, but govern center-right?"

When running, most politicians play to the people they hope will vote for them: the public. When governing, they play to the people who actually own the country: the big corporations and wealthy individuals whose money the pols depend on to run for office. Obviously, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush, which saw the economy in terrible shape (as it was also left after 8 years of Bush Jr.), Clinton knew the public wanted to hear vigorous promises to undo the corruption and other practices that had hurt the common people in the oountry, i.e., they wanted to hear so-called "liberal" rhetoric.

That said, I don't think Clinton was ever anything more than a centrist anyway, just as Obama isn't.

As for specific issues, here's one: the right wingers, Tea Partiers, et al., pontificate furiously against any sort of government provided health care or public option, but a majority of Americans favor a public option, and many would like to see single payer health care.

As for specific issues, here's one: the right wingers, Tea Partiers, et al., pontificate furiously against any sort of government provided health care or public option, but a majority of Americans favor a public option, and many would like to see single payer health care.

While in the reality based community, polls show that 85% of folks are happy with their current coverage.

And because No Child Must Be Left Behind, there's no recess. None. For first-graders. But there must be something wrong with a little boy getting restless.

I wouldn't put my children into such a school, but don't blame NCLB for this lunacy. NCLB is a federal policy but the vast majority of elementary schools still have multiple - appropriate - recesses for very young students.

Re the content of the video, my response to the chanting of "Can we make America better? Yes, we can!" was to wonder whether these kids are learning anything at all about how wonderful America really is. We are still the best country on earth, and they should know that.

Any publicly-funded institution that makes young kids sing praises to individual government officials should make one's skin crawl. This should be true regardless of ideology or party

Bolding this because it is the most important point....and because I think it irritates someone here...Bissage? :-)

Seriously. WTF. Taking time out of the children's limited learning time and attention span to have them spew praises of a transitory (we hope to God) partisan political figure?

This is indoctrination, plain and simple.

I'm also appalled that those who object to children singing Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer find no issue whatsoever with this completely inappropriate and ILLEGAL use of school time and tax payer dollars. Of course...I forgot. They worship at the altar of Obama and the new world order so that makes it just fine.

The country is still center right, but looking down the road a few decades, it's very hard to imagine that this will be the case.

I agree with Beth that we have lost our way with education, and I agree with JAL's point that sometimes it is racism to NOT talk about race. Education is one of those times when it is unhealthy not to discuss how our current system is missing the mark for too minorities when they will become the majority in this country soon enough.

I wouldn't put my children into such a school, but don't blame NCLB for this lunacy. NCLB is a federal policy but the vast majority of elementary schools still have multiple - appropriate - recesses for very young students.

One problem with that: if it's not because of NCLB, then how do you blame Bush? For any problem, you must start with the conclusion that Bush is to blame, then you can work out the connection.

This is un-American. Not in the sense that it is worship of Obama. Worship of Reagan - it may be that that occurred in certain classrooms - would be just as bad. It is a drill that inculcates subjecthood not citizenship. I'm not all that thrilled with the Pledge of Allegiance but at least it is a pledge to liberty and justice for all: principles. Not persons.

It's abundantly clear now to his supporters as well as his foes that Obama the man is just another mediocre politician who overpromises and underperforms. If I was a die-hard leftist, like perhaps this teacher is, by now I'd be thinking "how could I have been so fooled?" Not by his rhetoric, but by his pretensions of being a "transformational leader." The overwhelming sense I get from watching Obama love himself to death on TV these days is this guy represents anything but "change" and as a leader he is increasingly "hope"-less. He is numbingly average. His indecisiveness on Iran, his continued vagueness on the actual tough questions the health care reform bill poses, his complete indolence when it comes to the issue of transparency (Why isn't he leading the charge to demand the senate's bill be put online for 72 hours before the committee vote. The campaign version of Obama would have insisted on it), all of it taken together screams "I'm an average politician, utterly controlled by the special interests that got me here. As far as presidents go, I'm below average because I have no idea how to use the powers of my office."

How do you reconcile the deeds of a boring hack with the devotion and high ideals of this video? I mean, it's bad enough for those of us who think this stuff is creepy. But what about those who think it's inspiring? The reality of Obama must be the biggest buzzkill ever!

"While in the reality based community, polls show that 85% of folks are happy with their current coverage."

I'm happy with my current coverage, too, because I'm lucky enough to be employed and to have an employer who provides me access to a good plan. (I've had treatment for health issues the cost of which would have bankrupted me if not for this plan.) However, I definitely want single payer, "universal" health care, and I want the complete elimination of insurance companies from our health care delivery system. The one position does not necessarily preclude the other. I don't want to have to depend on being lucky enough to have a particular employer in order to know I can get health care as necessary.

Actually, I don't think most Americans are political at all, as far as having a consciously defined political worldview; most folks just want to go about their lives.

Agreed. And this desire to just want to go about life, to be free to care for one's family and pursue one's goals - happiness, even - without interference, is what motivates those who push for smaller government. Thank God we live in a country where people can afford not to care about politics. I just wish more people realized that wanting to be left alone is a political worldview.

Okay, if you go to the DAILY SHOW site you can click to watch last night's complete episode. The segment relating to this topic, and that ends with the clip of "Katrina Kids" singing, starts at about 11:50 in.

However, I definitely want single payer, "universal" health care, and I want the complete elimination of insurance companies from our health care delivery system

Well shit. I want a government funded mortgage payment too. How about a government funded car so I can get to work? You know, a government funded clothing allowance would be swell too. Cause you know those three things, food, shelter and clothing are the cornerstone for basic survival.

But you know Cookie, Medicare is bankrupt so don't you think the government should work on getting that fixed first? Maybe demonstrate that they can handle the 42 million Medicare folks before we add in the 300 million Americans and 10-15 million illegals?

Hey I have an even better idea. How about we cancel our membership in the UN along with the billions we pay into it, along with the additional billions we provide in aid to Africa, Asia and the other 'developing countries'

Now there's an idea, take care of our own before we take care of others.

Why don't we merge the two programs, Medicare with Torture/Killing? Then we could double your proposed savings.

See you have to forgive Cookie. The idea that this nation has a military and uses it for things like removing genocidal dictators or killing the Islamofascist headhackers who perpetrated 9/11 just gives him the vapors.

On the other hand if we simply converted to Islam and did the same stuff we could simply celebrate it as part of our rich cultural heritage.

And, this genocidal dictator about whom you've been manipulated to have the vapors was our buddy for a long time, and only became a (false) cause for alarm when he attacked another of our buddies in the region. We are in no way strangers to close cooperative bonds with brutal dictators around the globe, so any appeals to "vanquishing the bad guys" on our part are baloney, meant only to elicit unthinking approval for our wars of aggression abroad.

If you ignore the part GWBush played in it, you could say it was all Kennedy's fault.

Can I tell you how the children in this video reacted? Most of them didn't really like it -- sure, they went along with it, grumblingly, and about half learned all the words. Of those half, several actually understood what they were saying. Maybe one or two took away knowledge of how to memorize something. Whether or not they believed what they were saying, well that would depend on their parents' points of view at his age. Maybe a kid or two realized they really liked being on a stage in front of people. Some of them liked doing something different during the day, maybe because they weren't understanding what was going on in class. Some of them didn't like the disruption in the classroom routine.

"I have no objections to actual defense of our country; however,no war we've engaged in since WWII has been defensive. Certainly, all our recent wars have been entirely offensive."

Robert,

I think you have the logic or at least the justification backward:If we were proactive in Europe around 1940, we could have prevented the single worst event in the history of the world. In other words if we acted the way we have since WWII we could have avoided it. We will never know what we have avoided by our smaller "aggressive" wars. The idea that we can shrink our military, close the drapes and call 911 is a dangerous dream. Certainly not worth risking just to get single payer.

While insurance companies are less than perfect in health care, I don't see where you get the idea that single payer would be better. If as you describe, you needed serious treatment, then you should understand that under single payer you might not have gotten it, even if you could afford to pay for it. That is my history: I would be dead now if we had single payer of the Canada or UK variety.

R Cook wrote: To the degree Medicare needs additional funding, they can simply ... cut other areas of the budget. I recommend taking a big red pencil to large chunks of our military budget.

What a surprisingly unique position for a leftie to take. LOL

Of course the real puzzler is: If it is true, as Cook says, that the majority of Americans have a liberal point of view, why didn't Obama simply announce during the campaign that he would be pursuing a liberal agenda?

And why are he and most Democrats still lying about their commitment to single payer health care?

bahoh20 said:"That is my history: I would be dead now if we had single payer of the Canada or UK variety."

How do you know? There are not huge numbers of Brits or Canadians dying because they have government provided health care. Even granting for discussion that would have been the case for you, the canadian model and the UK model are not identical to one another, and there would be no reason an American model would be or should be identical to either of them; we would be free to craft an American single payer plan to our own needs.

My own history is that I would be dead or bankrupt if not for my having had health insurance through my employer; there are many Americans, both employed and unemployed, who do not have insurance, and many who have insurance find their coverage inadequate to their needs when the medical crisis arrives in their lives.It is my own personal history that convinces me we need universal health care in this country.

el hombre said:"And why are he and most Democrats still lying about their commitment to single payer health care?"

Please elaborate: what do you mean? Aside from a couple of mavericks, none of the Dems or Obama have expressed any slightest inclination to allow single payer to be given any consideration at all, much less do they have any "commitment" to trying to bring it about. From the start, Obama has been trying to foist a crippled "reform" plan on us, one that would continue to benefit the rapacious insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

R. Cook wrote: Aside from a couple of mavericks, none of the Dems or Obama have expressed any slightest inclination to allow single payer to be given any consideration at all....

Well, Cook,I guess that depends on whether I choose to believe you or my own "lyin'eyes."

It is artful of you to characterize Barney Frank as a "maverick," but he is not. Your use of "consideration" implies that it is the verbiage rather than the probable results of the proposal that we should consider.

Sorry. You can't sell that here.

WV "lizerns" = Young people, usually students, apprenticing to the Democrat leadership in Congress.

I have a friend who used to be the head of the PTA at Sand Hill-Venable. She would be aghast to know that it was becoming an indoctrination camp for Obama.

Frankly, I blame it all on the Vanderbilts and their descendants. If they hadn't started building an overpriced frou-frou neighborhood in Enka - now Biltmore Lake - to attract yuppie riff-raff, you wouldn't have seen a video like this made at Sand Hill-Venable.

Shock! Obama said six years ago that he was in favor of single payer! Scandal!

No shock, no scandal...we all know that's what he said then...which is why his absolute refusal to invite proponents of single payer to participate in any of the discussions he held a few months back with representatives of the various points of view on the subject of health care reform was such a betrayal...as were his backroom deals with the pharmaceutical companies where he promised not to negotiate for lower drug prices.

Any talk of "this will lead to single payer...sometime in the future" is merely pandering, a means of seducing proponents of single payer into supporting whatever botched deal is actually put together.

If Obama really had a commitment to single payer, he would have come in with that as his starting point, and compromised down from there.

You can choose to believe Obama is really just using the public option as a stealth move to bring in single payer, but I don't.

What is an "Obot?" If you percieve that I am a supporter of Obama, you're laughably mistaken. I didn't vote for that equivocating mediocrity as it was plain to see even a year ago he was just another compromised motherfucker. (I didn't vote for McCain either, but I did vote...and I stood in line for an hour to do so.)

Obama is smoother and smarter than George Bush, and probably not as crooked, but he's a puppet of the corporations just the same, and a member of the same war criminals club as well. (His mendacious rhetoric this week about "Iran is breaking the rules" is the same war-mongering horseshit the Republicans puked up for 8 years.)

"Single payer" is the term that exists to describe government-funded healthcare. I wouldn't necessarily have chosen the term, but it is the term. I'm not even sure of its derivation, but I'll speculate that it refers to the fact the government is the "single payer" for all healthcare services, (using funds drawn from tax revenues).

What is an "Obot?" If you percieve that I am a supporter of Obama, you're laughably mistaken.

I "perceive" you to be an ideologically driven leftist who will say anything and support anyone, including Obama, to further "the cause."

Otherwise, why assume he ought not to be accountable for what he said in 2003? Why dissemble about the stature and motives of the Democrats, including Barney Frank? Why pretend that the government option today won't likely lead to single payer tomorrow?

Doncha love the way they took over Enka Lake? Seen the I-26 exit at Long Shoals where it now looks like you're in downtown Asheville?

We moved out to the country before the golf course came knocking.

I do feel a little sorry for the author of the chant. She must be frazzled. An Obama supporter so in love with the new president that she had to share the joy of The Hope and Change.™ Someone needed to take her aside before tarted and give her a clue.

The local media is yakking about it all over the place. We are waiting to see which other presidents were honored and how.

"Otherwise, why assume he ought not to be accountable for what he said in 2003?"

Held accountable? Hell, he ought to be held accountable for betraying his statements from that time! If he came out today and asserted he wanted single payer, it would be something about him I could support.

"Why dissemble about the stature and motives of the Democrats, including Barney Frank? Why pretend that the government option today won't likely lead to single payer tomorrow?"

Because that's your misperception, not mine. I don't believe the Dems--a handful aside who openly support single payer--intend for the public option to be a gateway to single payer. I wish they did, I wish it were, but I don't. I think Obama and the Dems have, from the start, been poised for failure with their so-called "reform" of health care. They started in a compromised position, and from there one can only go down to defeat. They're sellouts to the heavy hitters in the medical and health care industry, the insurance companies and big pharma.

"Robert Cook: I know all of that, plus some. What I asked you is what you'd have chosen, and if that, why; and if not, what instead?"

I don't know; is it important?

I wouldn't have chosen "single payer" because it's not clear what it means unless one has taken the time to learn. Alternative names? Government funded health care; taxpayer funded health care; Medicare for all. I don't think the name is really significant, as long as it's clear what it's referring to.

Robert Cook wrote:"His mendacious rhetoric this week about "Iran is breaking the rules" is the same war-mongering horseshit the Republicans puked up for 8 years"

Oh my god! THEY ARE BREAKING THE RULES! They just revealed a hidden enrichment facility. They haven't been cooperating with the UN at all.And they were breaking the rules under Bush and even under Clinton. Therefore what you call "war mongering horseshit" I would call BASIC FACTS.

That doesn't mean that therefore you go to war with them (and Bush didn't go to war with them) but does it mean you have to literally lie about actual facts because you want to remain peaceful? So stating that Iran is breaking the rules, when they are breaking the rules is now warmongering and not merely stating common knowledge? So, to you, even if Iran does break the rules, we are not allowed to say so lest we be accused of warmongering?

"Oh my god! THEY ARE BREAKING THE RULES! They just revealed a hidden enrichment facility. They haven't been cooperating with the UN at all.And they were breaking the rules under Bush and even under Clinton. Therefore what you call "war mongering horseshit" I would call BASIC FACTS."

Nope.

This enrichment facility has been known about for some time, and the Iranians officially made its presence known within the time frame stipulated by their treaty obligations.

They're not breaking any rules they're bound by.

Obama and Hillary and the others in Washington expressing such faux surprise and "concern" are lying through their teeth.